(During my search, I spoke to those who I believe could pursue the Straight Path, as well as to many other sectors. I interviewed three people who, in my view, are allies in pursuing the Straight Path. The ideal situation is for those who still need experience to have the opportunity to have their skills and talents fully develop, and to understand all that is required of a leader. In my view, these three people could form a truly formidable team. At this point in time, success has eluded us in this endeavor. We reached an understanding; it seems like we have similar goals, but our means of achieving those goals are not exactly attuned to one another’s.)

He didn’t name Grace Poe but everybody knows how he tried to convince the lady senator in the three five to six hour meetings with Roxas and Sen. Chiz Escudero to be the running mate of the Liberal Party standard bearer.

He could not be referring to any other person but Poe with his “those who still need experience to have the opportunity to have their skills and talents fully develop, and to understand all that is required of a leader.”

Look who is talking!

Aquino himself is a shining evidence that the number of years in the House of Representatives and in the Senate does not translate to leadership competence.

It really depends on how a person carries out his or her job. In Poe’s two years in the Senate, she has shown competence and industry, which cannot be said of the person undermining her whose years as congressman and senator produced no notable legislation.

(It can’t be denied that Secretary Mar has a long experience in government service. They say he is fully ripe but as for me the vendor usually choose unripe fruits because they last longer.)

Aquino also insulted his mother, the housewife-widow turned president.

Teddyboy Locsin’s piece, “Idiot idea” on the suggestions that Poe should first gain experience and run for president in 2022 is a must read.

Locsin said: “This idea is: No. 1, stupid and No. 2, presumptuous.”

In fact, Poe not succumbing to the entreaties of the President showed firmness which is a leadership attribute.
Aquino feels he owes Roxas for what the latter did for him in 2010. But why should it be Poe who should shoulder the burden?

Aquino’s solution to his problem with Roxas’s presidential bid that refuses to take off baffles blogger Caliphman who remarked in my blog: “Someone please explain this to me. When Aquino decided to run for President, Roxas slid down to be his VP candidate because he was way behind in the presidential polls and Aquino was way ahead. Now the situation is like before with Roxas being way behind and Poe being way ahead. Can someone please explain to me why in this case, it should be Poe who should be sliding down instead of Mar?”

Pres.Aquino delivering his sixth and last State-of-the-Nation address.

It can’t be said that President Aquino has not learned anything in the last five years of his presidency.

We would like to think that his not mentioning the issue with China over territorial claims in South China Sea in his 6th and last State of the Nation address is an indication that he has learned from his mistakes of making unnecessary insulting comments that do not help at all advance national interest.

Maybe his not feeling well last Monday did not give him the opportunity to adlib. Or he would have repeated his favorite historical story of Sudetenland and once again compared China to Nazi Germany. Just what he did in his interview with New York Times before and early this year in his press conference in Japan.

If he did that, the Philippine hosting of the 2015 Asia Pacific Economic Conference would have the distinction of being boycotted by the Chinese top leader.

Chinese President Xi Jiinping was reportedly offended by Aquino’s Sudeten remark in Japan which had the effect of comparing him to Hitler that he is considering not attenting the November APEC summit in Manila and send a lower- ranking official instead.

We imagine that the Chinese leadership noted his not having mentioned the conflict with China in his SONA. In 2013, when there was also no mention of Chiana in his SONA, the Chinese leadership sent their appreciation.

It was in his 2011 SONA that Aquino announced he was raising the ante in the territorial conflict with China bragging that the Philippines has the capability to repel China’s aggression.

“Speakiing of security, does enhanced security not also enhance our national prid? There was a time when we couldn’t appropriately respond to threats in our own backyard. Now, our message to the world is clear: What is ours is ours; setting foot on Recto Bank is no different from setting foot on Recto Avenue,” he declared.

It was in that SONA that he announced his government’s plan to do the unprecedented move of hauling the superpower to an international tribunal:

“We do not wish to increase tensions with anyone, but we must let the world know that we are ready to protect what is ours. We are also studying the possibility of elevating the case on the West Philippine Sea to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, to make certain that all involved nations approach the dispute with calm and forbearance,”

It took two more years before Aquino put into action those words.

And it was because the Philippines had lost to China Scarborough Shoal also known as Panatag Shoal and Bajo de Masinloc, only 124 nautical miles from the shores of Zambales.

In his 2012 SONA, Aquino said, “The situation in Bajo de Masinloc has been the source of much discussion. Chinese fishermen entered our territory. Our patrol boats intercepted some of their ships, which contain endangered species. As your leader, it is my duty to uphold the laws of our country. And as I did, tension ensued: on one hand, the Chinese had their Nine-Dash Line Theory laying claim to almost the entire West Philippine Sea; on the other, there was the United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea, which recognized the rights of many countries, including that of China itself

“We demonstrated utmost forbearance in dealing with this issue. As a sign of our goodwill, we replaced our navy cutter with a civilian boat as soon as we could. We chose not to respond to their media’s harangues. I do not think it excessive to ask that our rights be respected, just as we respect their rights as a fellow nation in a world we need to share.

“There are those who say that we should let Bajo de Masinloc go; we should avoid the trouble. But if someone entered your yard and told you he owned it, would you agree? Would it be right to give away that which is rightfully ours?

“And so I ask for solidarity from our people regarding this issue. Let us speak with one voice. Help me relay to the other side the logic of our stand.

“This is not a simple situation, and there can be no simple solutions. Rest assured: We are consulting experts, every leader of our nation, our allies—even those on the other side—to find a resolution that is acceptable to all.”

Aquino was not being truthful with the people when he said that “patrol boats” intercepted the Chinese fishing vessels. It was BRP Gregorio del Pilar, at that time the country’s lone warship.

He was also not telling the truth when he said, “As a sign of our goodwill, we replaced our navy cutter with a civilian boat as soon we could.”

The truth was: sending a warship to intercept a fishing vessel Chinese was a violation of the rules of engagement of “white-to-white, gray-to-gray.” Meaning, a civilian vessel (Coast Guard or Bureau of Fisheries), not a warship, should intercept what it considers an intruding civilian vessel. Only when the intruding vessel is military should you send also a military ship.

It was not a sign of goodwill that BRP Gregorio del Pilar was pulled out of Scarborough Shoals.

Philippine authorities realized their mistake. They had to do it or else China would also send its warships.

The Scarborough Shoal incident hastened the Philippine filing of the suit before the U.N Arbitral Tribunal. Hearing started early this month.

“ The President and I talked for about five hours. I could sense the very difficult position PNoy is in right now. I understand and sympathize with his predicament and situation. I consider him a true and sincere friend and he has my utmost respect. He reiterated his desire for all of us to continue working together and that he believes that, like him, we can and will do what is best for our country. In the end, we both agreed to continue, in whatever capacity, striving and working for our countrymen and for the betterment of our children’s future.”

That’s the statement of Sen. Grace Poe on her one-on-one meeting with President Aquino last Monday.

With that assurance from the popular senator, it is hoped that Aquino would stop convincing Poe to be the running mate of the Liberal Party standard bearer. It’s getting tiresome.

The whole exercise is actually an insult to Poe and Roxas. When actually, it’s all about Aquino trying to spare himself the difficult task of endorsing a loser.

Aquino’s wish for Poe to run as vice president of Roxas is not really because he and the Liberal Party think that the lady senator’s popularity would rub on Roxas and win him more votes. They are political veterans; they know that a strong vice president does not lift a weak president. Recall 1998 elections: Gloria Arroyo was of no help to Jose de Venecia against Joseph Estrada. Also in 1992, Estrada was not able to boost Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco’s presidential bid against Fidel Ramos.

What they want Grace Poe to do is to get out of the way of Mar Roxas’ long –planned march to Malacanang. They are devious.

Having taken care of Vice President Jejomar Binay, an early frontrunner for the 2016 presidential race, with exposes on alleged massive corruption in Makati, the LP thought Roxas would only be up against fellow presidential lightweights senators Alan Cayetano, Chiz Escudero, and Ferdinand Marcos, Jr.

They didn’t reckon with the emergence of Poe as a presidential contender.

That’s the reason Aquino and the LP want Grace in their fold but as Mar’s vice president. They actually want to suppress and dim Grace’s rising political star.

A source close to the LP said the first meeting of Aquino, Poe, Escudero and Roxas was so embarrassing for Mar.

Contrary to reports that it was Poe who set as a condition Escudero joining her and Mar in going around the country, it was Aquino who proposed, “Isama nyo na si Chiz.”
One can imagine how Roxas must have felt when the President suggested that.

When it was getting clear that Grace preferred a Poe-Escudero team-up, the LP insulted her by saying “oh she is okay but that she is being controlled by Chiz.” It’s like saying she has no mind of her own.”

Proaclamation of Gloria Arroyo as winner of fraudulent 2004 elections.

The LP must have conveniently forgotten the 2004 elections when they were in partnership with Gloria Arroyo in insulting and undermining the candidacy of Grace Poe’s father, Fernando Poe Jr.

During the congressional canvassing of the votes of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates the LP actively suppressed questions on questionable results raised by the opposition. Remember Sen. Francis Pangilinan’s “Noted, Noted” whenever then senators Aquilino Pimentel Jr. and Tessie Aquino-Oreta brought to their attention number of votes exceeding number of registered votes in Maguindanao precincts? Remember Hello Garci?

And who raised the hand and proclaimed Gloria Arroyo the winner of the 2004 elections in the wee hours of the morning while the Filipino people were fast asleep? The LP’s Franklin Drilon as Senate President.

Now Aquino and the LP want Poe to sacrifice for their candidate?

Ano sila sinuswerete?

]]>http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2015/07/22/the-assurance-that-poe-gave-aquino/feed/12‘It’s legal to conduct military activities in EEZs of other countries’ -Commander of U.S. Pacific Fleethttp://www.ellentordesillas.com/2015/07/20/its-legal-to-conduct-military-activities-in-eezs-of-other-countries-commander-of-u-s-pacific-fleete/
http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2015/07/20/its-legal-to-conduct-military-activities-in-eezs-of-other-countries-commander-of-u-s-pacific-fleete/#commentsSun, 19 Jul 2015 18:34:57 +0000http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=25382

Admiral Scott H. Swift

The commander of United States Pacific Fleet said it is the stand of the United States that international law allows them to conduct military activities in the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zones of other countries.

Admiral Scott Harbison Swift , who was in the country last week as part of his familiarization tour having assumed the command last May 27, said “The common view of UNCLOS is that it allows military operations within the EEZ’s of many countries.”

He declared this U.S. position in an interview with a small group of reporters. Swift was asked about their view of freedom of navigation as China intensifies its activities in South China Sea like what was reported by CNN that the Chinese navy shooed away the U.S. surveillance plane over areas that China were reclaiming and constructing facilities in the disputed areas of South China Sea.

Swift, whose previous assignment included being commander of the Seventh Fleet, cited as an example the incident last July 4 when four Russian long-range bomber aircraft flew close enough to the US shores and were intercepted by U.S.military fighter jets.

‘It’s entirely legal. There was no demarche or anything by the U.S (on the incident with Russia),” he said.
Swift added: “U.S. operates on a regular with the EEZs of multiple countries.”

He said they don’t coordinate with the coastal state concerned because there is no requirement for it.
Swift, however, stressed that the U.S. doesn’t operate on the territorial seas of other countries which is 12 nautical miles from the baseline of a coastal state.” We honor those territorial claims,” he said.

An article by Ramses Amer , associate professor in Peace and Conflict Research and associate fellow of the Institute for Security & Development Policy, Sweden , said China does not agree with the U.S. interpretation of military activities of other countries in an EEZ of a coastal state.

Amer said: “The U.S. believes that in the EEZ user States enjoy unqualified freedom of navigation and over flight as on the high seas. The U.S. argues that by combining Articles 58 and 87 of UNCLOS, all States enjoy in the EEZ the pre-existing navigational and over flight freedoms from when the zone was part of the high seas. These include military activities, such as operating military devices, intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance activities, exercises, operations, and conducting military surveys.

“ China argues that the freedoms implied in Article 58 have some qualifications, including ‘due regard’ for the rights of all other States and the overarching principle of ‘for peaceful purpose/use.’” According to China’s line of argument, ‘freedom of navigation and over flight’ in the EEZ should not include the freedom to conduct military and reconnaissance activities, to perform military deterrence or battlefield preparation, or intelligence gathering. China maintains these activities infringe on the coastal state’s national security interests and can be considered a use of force, or a threat to use force, against the state, particularly with the advanced technologies used by the vessels.”

Article87 The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states :

1. The high seas are open to all States, whether coastal or land-locked. Freedom of the high seas is exercised under the conditions laid down by this Convention and by other rules of international law. It comprises, inter alia, both for coastal and land-locked States:(a) freedom of navigation; (b) freedom of overflight;(c) freedom to lay submarine cables and pipelines, subject to Part VI;(d) freedom to construct artificial islands and other installations permitted under international law, subject to Part VI; (e) freedom of fishing, subject to the conditions laid down in section 2; (f) freedom of scientific research, subject to Parts VI and XIII.

2. These freedoms shall be exercised by all States with due regard for the interests of other States in their exercise of the freedom of the high seas, and also with due regard for the rights under this Convention with respect to activities in the Area.

Art. 58 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states: “ In the exclusive economic zone, all States, whether coastal or land-locked, enjoy, subject to the relevant provisions of this Convention, the freedoms referred to in article 87 of navigation and overflight and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines, and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms, such as those associated with the operation of ships, aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines, and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention.

Other significant ideas mentioned by Swift:

• Whether the Mutual Defense Treaty can be invoked if China attacked or towed away BRP Sierra Madre in Ayungin Shoal is a policy question.
`”Thats a question that requires two agencies within theU.S. government to explore and answer- state Department and the Department of Justice.”
• The U.S. will soon expand Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training (Exercise CARAT), which is now bilateral, into a multilateral exercise that would include Japan.

A number of parents and single adult friends who happened to watch some episodes of Pinoy Big Brother 737 were appalled by the very sexual behavior of housemates, who are all teenagers –the youngest are 12 years old.

Which made me wonder, if the audience have that reaction watching the reality show, how about the parents of those housemates?

PBB 737 is the 12th PBB. Most of the previous shows were in the higher age brackets.

Big Brother is a reality game show franchise created by Dutch John de Mol. A group of people called “housemates” live together for a long period of time (In PBB 737, it’s seven weeks) in a specially constructed large house.

During their time in the house they are isolated from the outside world. Contestants are continuously monitored by in-house television cameras as well as personal audio microphones during their entire stay.

It’s supposed to be a test of character.

Every week, a housemate/ contestant is evicted by votes from the viewers. The last remaining contestant becomes the grand prize winner which includes cash and a house and lot. The TV exposure has helped winners including non-winners carve out careers in show business.

MTRCB stepped into the picture upon getting complaints about the show from parents saying that it failed to protect the welfare and development of minor “housemates” as well as the general viewing public.

MTRCB said the complaints cited scenes offensive to the sensibilities of the viewing public such as but
not limited to the alleged “bromance” – love and affection between two males – between housemates a Karlos Lorerzo “Ker:zo” Gutierrez, 18, and l2-year old Bailey Thomas May.

They also cited the huddling together and engaging in flirtatious talks and actions among male and female housemates; the indecent proposal by housemate Ryan to his co-male housemate if the latter could be his “mistress; the Iack of privacy of a young Muslim woman and interaction with non-Muslim males.

One viewer said he was turned off by the flirtations of a teenage housemate who is a single mother with another housemate.

MTRCB Chair Eugenio Villareal.

MTRCB called executive of ABS-CBN involved in the controversial show , Dr. Zandro G. Rapadas
of the U.P. College of Mass Communication and Ms. Arlene S. Lacson, who had complained about PBB737; and resource persons, among them, E arl P. Saavedra, of the Commissioner of the National Youth Commission; Georgina Gozo-Oliver of the Philippine Psychiatric Association; Director Jose Javier Reyes; psychologist Fr. Filoteo Mangulabnan, S.J.

The meeting resulted in MTRCB ordering ABS-CBN to institute remedial measures which include “To immediately cease and desist from requiring participants to engage in activities and tasks which may be deemed to be hazardous to their life and safety, or prejudicial to their physical, psychological, emotional, moral, spiritual, and social well-being.”

The show’s rating was changed from Parental Guidance (PG) to Strict Parental Guidance (SPG).
Programs classified as “SPG” may contain more serious topic and theme, which may not be advisable for children to watch except under the very vigilant guidance and presence of a parent or an adult.

Isn’t it ironic that these teen housemates, if they were the TV viewers, should not be watching these shows without the guidance of an adult when inside the Big Brothers house they are on their own, on display to the public.

MTRCB also limited the ABS-CBN’s application for permit to exhibit to seven episodes per application in order to ensure the correct and proper implementation of the committed remedial and self regulatory measures.
Many are asking, “why doesn’t MTRCB just order the scrapping of the show?”

The Philippines is still a democratic country and the Board is conscious of every citizen’s right to freedom of expression. Besides MTRCB, by its name, does classification of movies and TV shows to better guide the public for a more intelligent and worthwhile viewing.

It’s really up to the public. Don’t watch shows that are not worth watching.

President Aquino is welcomed by China’s President, APEC 2014 in Beijing.

China’s President Xi Jinping may boycott the 2015 Leaders Meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) to be held in Manila on Nov. 18 and 19, a diplomatic source said.

The source said the reason for Xi’s change of mind about attending this year’s APEC summit was the remarks of President Aquino last month during his visit to Japan comparing China’s activities in South China Sea to Nazi Germany’s expansionism which led to World War II.

“That remark really got the ire of Xi Jinping. Didn’t Aquino think that by comparing Nazi Germany to China today, he was in effect saying Xi is like Hitler? “ the source said.

The source further said Chinese leadership considered Aquino’s remark “an insult” to the Chinese people.

If Xi doesn’t come in November, it would be the first time that the leader of the world’s biggest economy, is absent in the annual meeting of an organization that promotes sustainable economic growth and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region.

APEC member economies are home to around 2.8 billion people and represent approximately 57 per cent of world GDP and 47 per cent of world trade in 2012.

If Xi would push through with the boycott, it would be the first time that a leader of a member economy‘s absence is due to an irritant with the host country. In 2013, U.S. President Obama didn’t attend the APEC summit in Bali, Indonesia but it was because of problems at home: failure of U.S. Congress to pass the budget caused government shutdown.

Last month’s remark by Aquino comparing Nazi Germany to China now was actually the second time he did it. He first made the comparison in a New York Times interview in February 2014.

In his desire to convince countries to join the fight against China, which the Philippines has sued at the Arbitral Tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Aquino said:“I’m an amateur student of history and I’m reminded of… (I was) just watching several documentaries on World War II and especially how Germany was testing the waters and what the response were by various other European powers. And in several instances, when he was—when he annexed Austria, when they were putting up forces, developing certainties in the Rhineland, or a lot of violations of the Versailles agreement, they tested the waters and they were ready to back down if—for instance and in that aspect—France said ‘stop.’

“But, unfortunately, up to the annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia, and eventually, the annexation of the entire country of Czechoslovakia, nobody said ‘stop.’ And the commentators on these documentaries were saying: ‘What if somebody said stop to Hitler at that point in time or to Germany at that time? Could we have avoided World War II?’”

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying said,” We are deeply shocked at, strongly dissatisfied with and opposed to the absurd remarks made by the Philippine leader.”

As a sign of Beijing’s displeasure, Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines Zhao Jianhua was a no-show at an event marking the 40th anniversary of the establishment of Philippine-China diplomatic relations last June 8 where President Aquino was the guest speaker.

Aquino extended the invitation to Xi for the Manila APEC summit when he attended the 2014 summit in Beijing last November. Aside from the formal Leaders’ meeting, Xi and Aquino had a pre-arranged 10-minute talk during the tree planting ceremony of leaders.

The brief meeting somehow thawed the strained relations between the two countries. In the last few months, however, tension between the two countries intensified with the massive reclamations of China in its occupied features in the Spratlys.

Last week, the U.N. Arbitral Court at The Hague, Netherlands started the hearing of the case filed by the Philippines against China.

The rhetorics hurled against each other over South China Sea territorial claims have caused widespread enmity between Filipino and Chinese people.

Last month, to mark Philippine Independence day, a protest rally was held in front of the China’s Consulate. The source said Chinese officials are worried that Xi would be subjected to protest rallies if he comes to Manila in November.

Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda was being catty when he dismissed as “KSP” lawyer Harry Roque’s criticism of the huge Philippine delegation to the hearing of the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal of the case filed by the Philippines against China in The Hague, Netherlands.

Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda

Roque raised a valid issue.

He said: “With only three oralists scheduled to make submissions before the Tribunal, why is it that we have a delegation of at least 35? I say at least because the number does not include our foreign counsels and their staff. I believe the correct number of our delegation should be at least 50. That’s 50 business class tickets and 50 de luxe rooms at five-star hotels in very expensive The Hague!”

Lacierda did not refute Roque’s numbers so I suppose the latter’s information was correct. From news reports from The Hague I have only the following names:

Valte defended the size of the delegation saying people should not “compute the support of a government united to fight for the country.”

We will never probably never know the true amount spent for this big delegation but I estimate it to be not less than P25 million.

Roque wrote in his blog: “I am currently in Pangasinan documenting how fishermen have been deprived of livelihood by the Chinese who have taken over their traditional fishing grounds in Panatag shoal. You don’t need a degree from the Kennedy School of Government to conclude that the money spent for the mirons in The Hague should have been used to assist the displaced fisher folks of Panatag instead. Oh well, only in this administration do you have policy makers fleecing off the people’s misery! Talk of the ultimate junket at The Hague! “

Roque further said, “All told, our delegation should not have exceeded 10 given that we have a full-fledged diplomatic mission there headed by our very capable Ambassador Jet Ledda and ably assisted by Atty Peachy Defensor, youngest sister of Inday Miriam. I would understand why the Office of the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court Justices and the Department of Foreign Affairs should be there. But 35 in addition to our foreign counsels? Come on!”

A lawyer who goes by the blog name “Saxnviolins” said it’s Lacierda who is KSP: Kulang sa paliwanag (short in explanation.)

Saxnviolins stressed that the The Hague occasion is “Legal arguments – hearing on jurisdiction.”

He asked: “Ano naman ang contribution ni Gazmin diyan? Is he going to testify on the military installations as proof of China’s aggressiveness? Eh hindi naman niya nakita, he is not a pilot. Besides, kung yun lang, you can introduce photos as evidence. In the words of Inday Badiday, careful, careful. Military matters are not within the jurisdiction of the ITLOS. because military action is the quintessential sovereign act, and therefore, the province of the ICJ.

Saxnviolins also wondered what has a justice in a graft court got to do with the PH case versus China?

“They brought along Sandiganbayan Justice Sarah Fernandez. What? May Philippine graft and corruption angle ba yan? The only graft and corruption I see is the waste of tax money on a junket,” he said.

He said it’s true Fernandez was once with the Office of the Solicitor General. “So what? Isang katerba na nga ang foreign counsel. I doubt there is anything they can contribute that Paul Reichler does not already know.”
Another blogger , MP Rivera,surmised what Llamas is doing in the hearing in The Hague: “Baka kukuha ng record si Llamas sa mga hearing at ibebenta sa Recto. Sideline nga naman!”

Are you sure it’s the hearing that he would be making a video recording? Don’t forget The Hague is just a short train ride to Amsterdam – where window shopping is of the lusty kind.

The Republic of China (ROC) or Taiwan has its issue with mainland China (PROC-People’s Republic of China) but in matters of ownership of almost the whole of South China Sea, they have the same line.

In the statement released by Taiwan Tuesday, it asserted that Nansha islands also known as Spratly Islands; Shisha (Paracel) islands, Chungsha Islands Macclesfield Bank) and Tungsha (Pratas) Islands, as well as their surrounding waters, are an inherent part of ROC territory and waters.

“As the ROC enjoys all rights to these island groups and their surrounding waters in accordance with international law, the ROC government does not recognize any claim to sovereignty over, or occupation of, these areas by other countries, irrespective of the reasons put forward or methods used for such claim or occupation,” the statement said.

Some 80 percent of the vast South China Sea) is claimed by China, Taiwan and Vietnam. Some parts of the SCS are also claimed by the Philippines, Vietnam and Brunei. Many of the claims are overlapping.

Of the 750 features – reefs, shoals, rocks- in the South China Sea, Vietnam occupies the most number: 22. The Philippines occupies nine; China, eight; Malaysia, four; and Taiwan, one. Brunei is the only SCS claimant that does not occupy any shoal or reef.

Taiwan occupies the biggest feature known as Itu Aba. The Chinese name is Taiping. Philippine name is Ligao.
Although it is occupied by Taiwan, with whom the Philippines has a good economic and cultural relations, Itu Aba was mentioned in the Memorial because the Philippines has a One-China policy that recognizes the Beijing government as the representative of the Chinese people.

Under the One-China policy, Taiwan is a province of China.

Not to mention Itu Aba would be tantamount to agreeing that it belongs to the Chinese people.

There was another matter concerning Itu Aba that became a contentious issue between then Solicitor General Francis Jardelesa, now Supreme Court Associate Justice and the Philippine legal team headed by Washington-based Paul Reichler.

Jardeleza was of the view that including Itu Aba in the Memorial would weaken the Philippine case because the island has a water source and can sustain human habitation therefore entitled to exclusive economic zone.

The legal team however said it is just a small atoll consisting of tropical reef covered with sandy coral and shell and cannot sustain human habitation. A military ship services the “island.”

As a compromise the Philippine team agreed to mention Itu Aba in the memorial but it was not included in the features that it asked the Arbitral Court to rule on.

In its statement, Taiwan said: “Taiping Island （Itu Aba）, the largest （0.5 square km） of the naturally formed Nansha （Spratly） Islands, has been garrisoned by ROC troops since 1956. In the same year, the ROC government established the Defense Zone of the Nansha （Spratly） Islands on Taiping Island （Itu Aba）. In February 1990, by executive decree, the Executive Yuan （Cabinet） of the ROC put Taiping Island （Itu Aba） under the administrative jurisdiction of Qijin District of Kaohsiung City. For the past six decades, ROC military and civilian personnel have dwelled on Taiping Island （Itu Aba）, conducting their respective missions while making use of and developing its natural resources.

“Taiping Island （Itu Aba） has groundwater wells, natural vegetation, and phosphate ore and fishery resources. Moreover, personnel stationed on the island cultivate vegetables and fruit and rear livestock. In 1959, personnel built the Guan Yin Temple, dedicated to the Bodhisattva of Compassion. From legal, economic, and geographic perspectives, Taiping Island（Itu Aba） indisputably qualifies as an “island” according to the specifications of Article 121 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （UNCLOS）, and can sustain human habitation and economic life of its own; it is thus categorically not a “rock”. The ROC government will firmly defend this fact. Any claims by other countries which aim to deny this fact will not impair the legal status of Taiping Island （Itu Aba） and its maritime rights based on UNCLOS.”

The nine-dash line map which the Philippines is asking the U.N Arbitral Court to invalidate originated with ROC.

The controversial 9-dash-line.

Taiwan’s statement touched on the map: “The South China Sea islands were first discovered, named, and used, as well as incorporated into national territory by the Chinese. In 1938 and 1939, Japan illegally occupied the Tungsha （Pratas）, Shisha （Paracel）, and Nansha （Spratly） Islands. On March 30, 1939, Japan integrated what it called “Shinnan Gunto” （comprising some of the Nansha （Spratly） Islands） into Takao Prefecture （today known as Kaohsiung City） through Announcement No. 122 of the Taiwan Governor-General’s Office. In 1946, following World War II, the ROC government reclaimed the Tungsha （Pratas）, Shisha （Paracel）, and Nansha （Spratly） Islands, erecting stone markers on major islands and garrisoning some.

In December 1947 it issued the revised names of the South China Sea islands and the Location Map of the South China Sea Islands, which delineate the scope of ROC territory and waters in the region.”
The map had 11- dashed lines. Much later, after an upheaval in China that pushed the ROC out of the mainland to Taiwan, the Beijing government removed the two dots reducing the dashed line to nine.

Taiwan said they are willing to work with other parties concerned to jointly ensure peace and stability in the South China Sea, as well as conserve and develop resources in the region.

]]>http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2015/07/08/taiwans-take-on-ph-suit-vs-china/feed/6What the Philippine U.N. case vs China is nothttp://www.ellentordesillas.com/2015/07/07/what-the-philippine-u-n-case-vs-china-is-not/
http://www.ellentordesillas.com/2015/07/07/what-the-philippine-u-n-case-vs-china-is-not/#commentsMon, 06 Jul 2015 17:14:49 +0000http://www.ellentordesillas.com/?p=25330Contrary to what many think that the Philippines case against China in the Arbitral Court of the United Nations Commission on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) will clarify who owns what or which of the reefs in the Spratlys, it won’t.

That’s because that is not in the scope of the U.N. Arbitral Tribunal where the Philippines filed the case. The UN Arbitral Tribunal only deals with the interpretation and application of UNCLOS.

It does not decide on sovereignty over disputed features in the sea.

Territorial disputes are the domain of the International Court of Justice or ICJ.

The reason the Philippines didn’t haul China to the ICJ was it requires the participation of all parties in a territorial dispute. China refuses to be a party to an ICJ case. It has always insisted that the best way to resolve disputes is bilateral negotiations.

The Philippines, on the other hand, insists that negotiations should be multilateral – among all claimants in the Spratlys.

The Philippines’ insistence on multilateral negotiations is puzzling in the case of Scarborough Shoal (also known as Panatag Shoal and Bajo de Masinloc. The Chinese call it Huangyan island) because unlike in the Spratlys, which is claimed wholly or partly by five countries and Taiwan, the dispute over the shoal, 124 nautical miles from the shores of Zambales, is only between the Philippines and China.

Since the Arbitral Tribunal does not decide on territorial conflicts, the case filed by the Philippines against China is about maritime rights.

The three basic issues of the Philippine case versus China are: The validity of China’s nine-dash lines; low tide elevations where China has built permanent structures should be declared as forming part of the Philippine Continental shelf; the waters outside the 12 nautical miles surrounding the Panatag Island (Scarborough shoal) should be declared as part of the Philippines 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone.

Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, who has been doing lectures on the South China Sea conflict, explained “The Philippines is asking the tribunal if China’s 9-dashed lines can negate the Philippines’ 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone as guaranteed under UNCLOS. The Philippines is also asking the tribunal if certain rocks above water at high tide, like Scarborough Shoal, generate a 200 NM EEZ or only a 12 NM territorial sea. The Philippines is further asking the tribunal if China can appropriate low-tide elevations (LTEs), like Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, within the Philippines’ EEZ. These disputes involve the interpretation or application of the provisions of UNCLOS. “

Supreme Court Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, when he was still the solicitor general in February 2014, also explained to reporters: We are not asking the court to say who owns Panatag shoal. We are arguing that they are within our EEZ and therefore under the rules of UNCLOS we have exclusive rights to fish within that area. For example Mischief Reef, again it’s completely submerged. If it’s completely submerged therefore it is entitled to no rights at all. We are not saying, asking the tribunal to declare who owns the structures above the reefs. All were saying is declare that it being submerged it is entitled to no rights at all. So whatever rights the occupant has is only to the structure. It has no 12-mile territorial sea or even one meter territorial sea. So our claim is a very narrow one, land dominates the sea. This is not a case about land. This is a case about the maritime waters which is perfectly under UNCLOS.”

It’s classic brinkmanship. Even the Chinese are impressed.

In its position paper published Dec. 7, 2014, China said: “The Philippines has cunningly packaged its case in the present form. It has repeatedly professed that it does not seek from the Arbitral Tribunal a determination of territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features claimed by both countries, but rather a ruling on the compatibility of China’s maritime claims with the provisions of the Convention, so that its claims for arbitration would appear to be concerned with the interpretation or application of the Convention, not with the sovereignty over those maritime features. This contrived packaging, however, fails to conceal the very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, the territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features in the South China Sea.”

If the Arbitral Tribunal agrees with China’s observation that the case is really a territorial and sovereignty dispute, it would say it’s outside its jurisdiction. That’s the end of the case.

But if the Philippine legal panel headed by the current Solgen Florin Hilbay and Washington-based lawyer Paul Reichler, are able to convince the Arbitral Court that the Philippine case does not involve determination of sovereignty over disputed maritime features, the issue of jurisdiction is hurdled. On to the discussion of the merits of case.

Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague. The Arbitral Tribunal starts hearing tomorrow the case filed by the Philippines vs China in this building.

Despite the presence of a high-level Philippine team at the hearing of the Philippines’ case against China before the Arbitral Tribunal of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) this week, the issue of who owns the contested islands in the South China Sea will remain unresolved.

That’s because the Philippine team won’t be arguing its territorial claims, which are not under the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague in the Netherlands.

“We are very confident that we can convince the court that this is not about ownership of land,” said former solicitor general now Supreme Court justice Francis Jardeleza, who is part of the Philippine team.

Instead, the Philippines merely wants the Tribunal, which interprets UNCLOS, to invalidate China’s 9-dash line claim over the South China Sea.

Territorial claims are the jurisdiction of another body, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the ICJ only entertains cases if all parties in the dispute participate. China has refused to do so.

But although the Philippines is not arguing about who owns what in the South China Sea, its arguments have been misconstrued as such. Jardeleza, in fact, said, “For example, we’re not asking the court to say who owns Panatag shoal. We are arguing that they are within our EEZ and therefore under the rules of UNCLOS we have exclusive rights to fish within that area.”

It is this posturing by the Philippines that China calls sly and cunning. Although saying it is not making a territorial claim before the Tribunal, the Philippines’ words practically establish ownership of islands and areas, the Chinese government said.

In its position paper submitted in December 2014, China said, “The Philippines has cunningly packaged its case in the present form.”

“This contrived packaging, however, fails to conceal the very essence of the subject-matter of the arbitration, namely, the territorial sovereignty over certain maritime features in the South China Sea,” China’s position paper adds.

The hearing at The Hague this week, however, comes at time of heightened tensions between the two countries, with China speeding up the reclamation of disputed islands in the South China Sea, even building on those the Philippines claims as part of its territory.

The top-level team of Philippine government officials preparing to face the Tribunal is composed of two Supreme Court justices, the leaders of Congress, and the secretaries of foreign affairs and justice, as well as the executive secretary.

The team includes Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, who has been delivering lectures on the South China Sea conflict, and Jardeleza, who was solicitor general when the Philippines first submitted its memorandum to Tribunal on March 30, 2014. A memorandum is called a memorial in international law.

Also in the team are Senate president Franklin Drilon, House speaker Feliciano Belmonte, foreign affairs secretary Albert del Rosario, justice secretary Leila de Lima, and executive secretary Paquito Ochoa.

Leading the Philippine legal team are solicitor general Florin Hilbay and Paul Reichler, a Washington-based lawyer, who are expected to tell the Tribunal that the Philippines’ arbitration case against China is solely a maritime dispute and does not involve any territorial conflict.

The Philippines, in all its submissions to the Arbitral Tribunal, emphasized that it does not seek a determination on which party enjoys sovereignty over any of the insular features claimed by both but has confined itself to raising claims that require the interpretation or application of UNCLOS.

The Philippine has asked the Court not to “bifurcate” or divide in two parts the jurisdiction aspect and the merits of the case.

“There’s so much tactical advantage to that procedure because we are very strong on the merits and by discussing the merits more and more you gain an advantage hoping to convince the tribunal that they should take the case and rule that they have jurisdiction,” Jardeleza said.

Last April, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) that acts as a registry in the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedure, announced the hearing on the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction in the Philippine case versus China would be held July 7 to 13.

If the team is unable to convince the Tribunal, “that’s the end,” said Foreign Affairs Spokesperson Charles Jose.

But if the Tribunal rules it has jurisdiction, “It’s almost an 80 per cent chance of winning the case,” said lawyer Harry Roque, director of the University of the Philippines Law Center’s Institute of international Legal Studies.

China’s Dec. 7, 2014 position paper states: “The Philippines’ claims is in essence one of territorial sovereignty over several maritime features in the South China Sea, which is beyond the scope of the Convention and does not concern the interpretation or application of the Convention. Consequently, the Arbitral Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the claims of the Philippines for arbitration.”

Roque said the UNCLOS dispute settlement procedure is limited to “interpretation and application of the UNCLOS.”

“It is not involved in matters of sovereignty,” he said.

Carpio explained in one of his lectures on the South China Sea conflict, “The Philippines is asking the tribunal if China’s 9-dash lines can negate the Philippines’ 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone as guaranteed under UNCLOS.”

“The Philippines is also asking the tribunal if certain rocks above water at high tide, like Scarborough Shoal, generate a 200 NM EEZ or only a 12 NM territorial sea. The Philippines is further asking the tribunal if China can appropriate low-tide elevations (LTEs), like Mischief Reef and Subi Reef, within the Philippines’ EEZ. These disputes involve the interpretation or application of the provisions of UNCLOS,” Carpio added.

Jardeleza said, “Our claim is a very narrow one, land dominates the sea. This is not a case about land; this is a case about the maritime waters which is perfectly under UNCLOS.”

The PH legal team is expected to justify its decision to seek compulsory dispute settlement after it has exhausted the negotiation tack, both bilateral and multilateral as required by UNCLOS.

China insisted in its position paper that “disputes between the two States shall be resolved through negotiations and there shall be no recourse to arbitration or other compulsory procedures.”

The team is also expected to tell the Tribunal that talks between the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and China on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea is inadequate, as its objective is to promote peace and stability in the region by coming up with a code on how claimants should conduct themselves pending resolution of the dispute.

Aside from Hilbay and Reichler, other members of the Philippine legal team are British law professors Philippe Sands and Alan Boyle and Bernard Oxman from the University of Miami’s Law school.

The five-member Arbitral Tribunal is chaired by Judge Thomas A. Mensah of Ghana. The other Members are Judge Jean-Pierre Cot of France, Judge Stanislaw Pawlak of Poland, Professor Alfred Soons of the Netherlands, and Judge Rüdiger Wolfrum of Germany.

(VERA Files is put out by veteran journalists taking a deeper look at current issues. Vera is Latin for “true.”)